MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028055204 · doi:10.1142/s0217751x07036336

WHY THERE IS SOMETHING SO CLOSE TO NOTHING: TOWARDS A FUNDAMENTAL THEORY OF THE COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT

2007· article· en· W2028055204 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Vishnu Jejjala, Djordje Minić

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Modern Physics A · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa BarbaraInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsPhysicsCosmological constantTheoretical physicsVacuum energyCosmological constant problemString theoryMinkowski spaceSupersymmetryQuantum gravityDecoupling (probability)Quantum mechanicsDark energyQuantumCosmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cosmological constant problem is turned around to argue for a new foundational physics postulate underlying a consistent quantum theory of gravity and matter, such as string theory. This postulate is a quantum equivalence principle which demands a consistent gauging of the geometric structure of canonical quantum theory. We argue that string theory can be formulated to accommodate such a principle, and that in such a theory the observed cosmological constant is a fluctuation about a zero value. This fluctuation arises from an uncertainty relation involving the cosmological constant and the effective volume of space–time. The measured, small vacuum energy is dynamically tied to the large "size" of the universe, thus violating naive decoupling between small and large scales. The numerical value is related to the scale of cosmological supersymmetry breaking, supersymmetry being needed for a nonperturbative stability of local Minkowski space–time regions in the classical regime.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.348
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Modern Physics ASame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207